Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic Economics Magazine

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic Economics Magazine[edit]

Non notable magazine with no references. Hipocrite (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Author did article no favours by not attempting to establish notability. However, a quick scan on Google suggests that this is a serious long-standing publication, and the fact that it has been running for fifty years (as suggesting by GNews search) counts in its favour. I think this article is rescuable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Agree with Chris Neville-Smith. News search indicates that the magazine is well-known in chiropractic community. Plus a magazine that is in publication for more than a decade and publishes 20 issues a year clearly has some significant following. But the article in its present state reads like an advert. Unless cleaned up and improved, I wouldn't mind its deletion. ^LeaveSleaves 16:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.